Section 19 The person shall be
released from minorship and underage when he is twenty years of age.
Section 20 Minor minor in
marriage If the marriage is in accordance with Section 1448
Section 21 Minority shall do
any act subject to the consent of the principal prior to any minor's act
without such consent as void. Unless otherwise stated.
Section 22 Minors may take any
action if it is just to obtain a right. Or to release from one of the
functions.
Section 23 Minors may perform
any of the following, which shall be subject to the sole discretion.
Section 24 A minor may perform
any of the functions of his or her own ministry. And it is necessary to live
properly.
Section 25. A minor may make a
will at the age of fifteen.
Section 26. If the authorized
representative permits the minor to dispose of the property for one of the
purposes specified. Minors will dispose of the property within the margin of
the specified, then it is up to the applicant to apply, if allowed to dispose
of the property without specifying for any purpose. Minors are available to
subscribe.
Section 27. A legal person may
give consent to a minor to engage in a business or other business. The contract
is an employee in the employment contract. In the case where the notary does
not give consent without reasonable cause. Minors may petition the court for
permission.
In relation to the business or
employment of workers under paragraph one, the minor shall have the status of a
person who is under the age of majority.
If the conduct of a business
or the work is subject to the consent or permission under paragraph one Cause
damage to the minor or scams to minors. A lawyer may terminate the consent
given to a minor, or in the case where the court permits. A lawyer may request
the court to revoke the permission granted to the minor.
In the case where the
principal has terminated the consent without reasonable cause, the minor may
request the court to revoke the consent of the legal representative.
Withdrawal of consent by a
representative or revocation of a permit by a court It is the same as that of
the minor. It does not affect any. The minor has already acted prior to the
termination of consent or revocation of the license.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
8056/2559.
Even the plaintiff, the first and
second plaintiff's father filed a divorce with the plaintiff, the first jointly
stated that the plaintiff's second child is under the jurisdiction of the am
agreed. The plaintiff's power to join the second plaintiff under Section 1520,
paragraph one, Section 1566 (6), the plaintiff is not a power of law and no
right to act on behalf of the plaintiff. The request for compensation for
damages to reputation Damages to the body and mind. Damages to freedom and
damages suffered. Can be considered as an act on behalf of the plaintiff, the
co-2 who is a minor. Although the application is not in accordance with the
provisions on the ability of the person under Section 56 paragraph two of the
Civil Code Section 56, Section 40, but the age of the plaintiff in the second
case. Under consideration of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff's co-2 years over
the age of 20 years out of the status of minors and underage. There is no need
and no grounds for the Supreme Court to issue a correction order on the ability
of the plaintiff to join the second plaintiff can do any other. Without the
consent of the parent or a legitimate representative under Section 21, when the
facts are heard. The defendant brought the plaintiff to the second to indecency
and do. Offense to the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the second
plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
10008/2558.
Defendant 1, the defendant's second
child, the third driver of the car crashed at the driver, who was insured with
the plaintiff. Cause the car was damaged. The investigating officer made a
record in the daily report on the case that he was not interested in claiming
damages from the defendant, but either way, the parties signed the evidence.
The dispute is settled. A compromise agreement under Section 850 as a result of
the defendant has no right to claim damages from the defendant to the plaintiff
to compensate for damage to the contract in the insurance policy. The contract
in the insurance policy is not limited to the defendant or the injured to enter
into a compromise agreement with the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is
not entitled to the rights of the insured due to the suspended debt.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3434/2558.
The lawsuit asks children to be
children while the child is a minor. If the child is not yet fifteen years old.
The child's representative is the suitor. When the child is fifteen years old.
Children must sue themselves. Without the need to obtain the consent of the
prosecutor under Section 1556, paragraph two, when applying for a minor was
fifteen years old. Minors must submit their own request. The minor will give
the petitioner the right to file a petition on behalf of the minor. Even the
minor will be disabled. The applicant has no power to file a request. However,
minors still have the right to sue or request in person under Section 1556,
paragraph three.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2125 - 2126/2558.
A compromise agreement is a legal act
that affects the property of a minor who is not authorized by the governing
body. Except the court will allow the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1574
(12) when the user of the power of law and the law is not prohibited by law. It
is considered that minors do legal acts with the legislature, the effect that
the legislator allowed to do without asking for permission from the court. It
is an avoidance of asking for permission from the court, which is wrong from
the spirit of the law. When it is not appearing that the defendants 2 and 3,
who are parents who use the jurisdiction of the first defendant, the minor is
allowed by the court and the lordship of the province of Pathum Thani. The
compromise agreement at the Court of First Instance is a verdict, so it does
not bind the defendant.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1790/2558.
Section 3 of the Islamic Law in
Pattani, Narathiwat, Yala and Satun, BE 2489, provides for the application of
Islamic law on family and inheritance law. The Civil and Commercial Code
However, this case is the case where the applicant authorizes the court to act
in lieu of a minor pursuant to Section 1574 of the request for permission of
the court. It protects the interests or interests of minors. This is a
limitation of the rights of the users. The condition of the charge is not a
family matter and a direct inheritance that applies the law of Islamic family
and inheritance of the minor, which is the ability to do legal acts by
themselves. Must comply with Section 19 of the Civil Code. The person is
released from minors and underage when he is twenty years old. When a minor is
19 years old, it is not out of minors, so the petitioner has to apply for
permission to act as a legal representative of the minor under Section 1574 of
the Court of First Instance using Islamic law. At the age of 15 years, the
petitioner's request is not liked.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1783/2558.
The plaintiff is a minor contract
to buy a land to the defendant's first case that the minor act. The guardian of
the defendant is a person who is not a case under Section 1574, but must be
adjusted under Section 21, which states that. Minors will do any act must
obtain the consent of the first. Otherwise, the act is void. When it is clear,
it is considered null and void from the outset. And the contractor back to the
status of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 176, paragraph one, so the
plaintiff is not bound. Case is not the plaintiff and the defendant to do the
law by avoiding the law.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
18033/2557.
Defendant 1 and 2 is a minor
defendant 4, 5 is a defendant, the defendant 7, 8, 8 is the defendant, the
second defendant, Section 430 stipulates that the recipient of care for minors
must share the responsibility. The minor in violation of the minor's act while
in custody. If it proves that the person did not take reasonable care. When the
plaintiff claimed the defendant, 4, 5, which cared for the defendant and the
7th defendant, the 8th, which cared for the second defendant did not take
reasonable care. Abandoned to the 1st and 2nd defendants playing gas lighter. Other
people in the minor can not play. It is the plaintiff's duty to prove that the
defendant 4 and 5, the defendant 7th, 8th, do not take care of the defendant 1
and 2, as appropriate, by abandoning the defendant's first and second gas
lighter. The fire of the plaintiff's property was damaged. But the plaintiff's
attorney has confirmed that. The first and second defendants were brought to
play in the parking garage in the plaza of the plaintiff's eucalyptus, causing
a fire, fuel tank and rubbish in the front of the car. Ten-wheel Registration
number 83 - 0776 Udon Thani and fire burned. Including rear axle trailer.
Registration number 81 - 9686 Udon Thani with the backhoe of the plaintiff,
which parked in the garage was damaged. Without any fact that the date of the
defendant's 4 th and 7 th defendant No. 8 did not take care of the defendant 1
and 2, as appropriate, or abandoned to the defendants 1 and 2 to play gas
lighter. Even though The defendant's 1st and 2nd defendants bought a cigarette
lighter from the store and brought it to the playground at the scene. But this
defendant to the 5th and 7th defendant that the 8th fight has been cautious
care by the defendant by the 4th defendant that the defendant never let the
fire play 1 never used to fire. Burn the garbage or use it to buy gas lighter
at the store. Day 1 of the defendant to play at the yard to buy eucalyptus
wood. The son of a fourth defendant, the 5th defendant, the defendant's first
work in the courthouse, and the defendants 7 and 8, the defendant said that the
7th and 8th defendants leave the funeral home from morning. The defendant 2 to
leave with Mrs. Shui, the sister of the defendant, 6, the plaintiff did not
object to the fact that it is not true. The plaintiff has no evidence to prove
that the date of the defendant, the 5th and 7th defendant, the 8th, do not take
care of the defendant, the second or the defendant to the defendant's first and
second defendants. Gas lighter and bring it to the point that the fire burns
the property of the plaintiff or ever witnessed that the defendant, 1, 2, play
a lighter gas, and then do not care. The plaintiff only one mouth to testify,
so it is not enough weight to defend the 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th, so it is not
liable to defend the first and second defendants.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
15200/2557.
The duty of a parent to take care
of the child is to act as a minor. Or if you have to take care of a child under
the age of disability, it can not be self-sufficient under Section 1564, it
shows that the child-raising care must be done until the child's suicide. The
minor may be married at the age of 17 or the age of 20 years, the lower court
to set up child support for the defendant, the father paid for a period of time
until the child is 20 years old is incorrect. The defendant should pay the
foster care until the child is underage. The defendant claims that. There are a
lot of obligations, debts and the need to raise children with spouses married
three other people to reduce the cost of parenting. The plaintiff's personal
reasons for not raising the claim. And if so, the defendant can file a petition
to the court to amend the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1598/39.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
11520 - 11521/2557.
Deprivation for minor offenses To
consider whether a minor is willing or unwilling Must consider the intent of
the mind of the minor. This case, the victim was intended to visit Malaysia as
the persuasion of the defendant, the first victim 1 to travel alone, the
defendant does not force the victim 1 as follows, the first victim will not be
willing to find it.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2664/2557.
The petitioner filed a petition
dated September 9, 2010 asking the Court of First Instance to call a probation
officer with a land surveyor to investigate, claiming that the MP was assigned
by the Director of Observation and Protection. Children and youth in Phuket do
not perform the duty of protecting the interests of minors, so that minors are
disadvantaged in separating the land. It is considered to be a court order to
claim. The action of the superintendent is not in accordance with the court's
assignment. Juvenile Court and Family and Juvenile Justice Act 2010, Section
169, paragraph three, which provides that the person under the jurisdiction
must be called to the court within 15 days from the date of knowing the action.
When the petitioner learns that the landlord of Phuket separates the land to a
minor before filing the petition for more than 15 days in case there is no
cause for the court to hear the petitioner's consideration.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1419/2557.
Although the employment contract
is the name of the employer is the sole defendant. In the contract, Clause 1
has an agreement that the plaintiff in the case that the defendant is the
second defendant of the defendant. The lawyer also stated that the defendant
was a defendant by a second defendant appointed a lawyer in the case.
aforementioned In addition, the second defendant is not in the case. The
plaintiff's employment is the act of the defendant, the first is a minor. The
fact is that the defendant made a contract that the defendant is a minor, the
defendant is a minor with the defendant, the first defendant must be liable to
the plaintiff.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
18489/2013.
Section 1646 stipulates that any
person will show intent by willing to determine the dead on their property. Or
in various ways that will be legally enforceable when they die. By that
provision, the person who is going to make a death will in relation to the
property. Must be their own property only. The dead person can not be scheduled
for the property of another person. The defendant deposited money with the
defendant bank by opening a deposit account using the name. Death to a minor If
the minor is the owner of the deposit in such account, the ownership of the
money will be a minor of the bank immediately defend the first deposit into the
account. The dead person is not entitled to make a will to raise the deposit to
anyone. This will not be enforced.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
12704/2056.
A minor is forbidden to become a
trustee. Even though he is a legitimate representative, he is not an
inheritance trustee. At the bottom of the court two judges were sentenced to
women. The second objection is the estate manager of the dead.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
9285/2556.
When the defendant is guilty of
minor offenders. Understanding that the victim is over 18 years old, then it is
a mistake in the fact that the age constituted the offense under the first
paragraph of Section 318 of the act of the defendant, lack of intention to
commit such offense under Section 59 paragraph 59 three
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4791/2556.
The plaintiff and the defendant made a
compromise agreement under the memorandum in a copy of the daily report that
the plaintiff will not claim support from the defendant again. The agreement is
a waiver of the right to foster care. Contrary to the provisions of Section
1598/41, this agreement is not enforceable. The defendants still have the duty
to raise and educate their children. The child must be paid for the child.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
16469/2555.
Section 1363, paragraph one, states
that "a total owner has the right to claim the property. Unless there is a
legal action. Or, if the purpose of the joint ownership is permanent, then it
can not be divided. " "He said that the owner would call for the
division of property in a time that is not a good opportunity." According
to the fact that the plaintiff and the two defendants have agreed that the
purchase of land and commercial buildings disputed. Even if the answer to the
question of the two defendant KTC, the plaintiff wants to have the plaintiff
have to eat in the commercial dispute with the two defendants, but it is not
only the payment of land. Total owners It can not be assumed that the purpose
of the total owner is to share a permanent nature. The second defendant is also
a minor, not a diversion, and not a case, not a chance in any way. When it
appears that the plaintiff can not continue business. And to rent it to the
problem with the two defendants can not agree. The two defendants to take
possession of the benefits to the plaintiff's problems with the amount of compensation.
Sharing ownership will not benefit. The plaintiff wants to share the ownership
is the right of the plaintiff and is appropriate. The plaintiff is called to
share ownership in the land and commercial buildings disputes.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
3184/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for
the violation of the plaintiff by the father of the plaintiff sued and
prosecuted as a representative. But the fact is that the plaintiff is a suitor
then suing. The plaintiff is not a minor under the parental authority of the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1566, paragraph one, the plaintiff can do
anything without the consent of the prosecutor under Section 2166 But when the
plaintiff sued the disabled, speechless and can not walk. The plaintiff's
father prefers to go to court to ask the plaintiff to be incompetent or
innocent. Unable to set up a preschooler or guardian, as the case may be. As
long as there is no court order, the plaintiff is incompetent or virtual. Can
be considered that the plaintiff is a person capable of doing any lawful self.
Including the lawsuit and prosecution to the plaintiff's father to sign the
plaintiff's lawyer to file a lawsuit instead of the plaintiff. There is no
court order to be the kindergarten or protector of the plaintiff. As a defect
in the ability to comply with the provisions of Section 56 of the Civil Code,
the case must be resolved before.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
7238/2549.
Deprivation of minors by minors
unwilling to go with indecency, according to the Penal Code Section 318
paragraph three, according to the prosecution pleaded guilty to indecency by
the minor willing to go with Section 319, the first paragraph to consider the
good. One common mistake "Whoever is less than fifteen years old, but not
more than eighteen years old, from his parents, guardian or guardian ...",
it is evident that the object of the two offenses is the law. Protection is the
parental authority. Parent or caretaker The victim is the person who has been
harmed by the two offenses. This is in accordance with Section 2 (4) of the
Act. The parents or caretakers of both minors, while the three defendants and
their co-founders are wrong, the minor is not the plaintiff.
While the two plaintiffs filed a
petition with the prosecutor and the plaintiff. Court of First Instance has a
permit. Both plaintiffs are not under age 20 or under the age of marriage under
the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 19 and Section 20, and the victim of
criminal cases, which is still a minor, will apply for a plaintiff together
with employees. Section 5 (1) The plaintiffs together, both of whom are minor,
apply to be plaintiffs themselves. It does not follow the mandatory provisions
of the legal person. But the Supreme Court will not accept the petition or not.
The Supreme Court will order the correction of the defect before the SEC Civil
Code, Section 56, paragraph two of Section 15 of the SEC, but the age of the
two plaintiffs while the case is pending court. The plaintiff jointly over 20
years old from the status of minors and underage. There is no need and no
grounds for the Supreme Court to require a correction order. The ability of the
plaintiff to join together again.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
5527/2541.
When the plaintiff, who is a minor, has the
consent of the parents to file and prosecution. The plaintiff has the right to
authorize others to sue and prosecute. Get parental consent again.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
6475/2537.
The victim of the criminal case, who
is still a minor, will apply to join the plaintiff with the prosecutor. To be
done by a representative under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 3.5 and 6,
the minor victim is asked to join the plaintiff by signing the appointment of a
lawyer by himself, so that the lawyer can proceed with the consideration. Does
not comply with the legal requirements of a legal person; But the court will
not accept the case or not. To order the correction of defects in accordance
with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 56, paragraph four
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 6 and 15, when the plaintiff is a
minor, not a petitioner, and the case can not make a word. The Supreme Court's
ruling on the issue that the defendant committed the wrongful act of the
plaintiff's lawsuit or changed. And when the age of the plaintiff at the time
of the case is under consideration by the Supreme Court. The plaintiff is more
than 20 years of age, then there is no need and no reason for the Supreme Court
to order to correct the defect of the plaintiff's ability to share.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4984/2537.
Civil and Commercial Code, Section
1574, which deals with the sale of real estate of minors, which the users of
power. It is not the case that the court will grant the consent of the law.
Property Protection And some of the important things of the minors. When the
court has examined, it is deemed appropriate to order. Then the legislator will
rely on the permission of the court to do legal acts. When the lawyers are
prohibited by law, do not act a land sale, which means. Including the legal act
to sell the land instead of the small one. It is considered that the minors do
legal acts with the representatives have the effect that the representatives.
Right to do I do not have to ask for permission from the court before it is to
avoid asking for permission from the court, which is wrong from the spirit of
the law, so the contract will be sold to the dispute that the third defendant
was doing while still a minor, even the defendant. 1, who is the father and the
third defendant will have the same contract. The contract to buy and sell the
dispute is no. Binding the defendant. 3 And the case is not void. Even after
the third defendant will be underage by marriage, the third defendant can not
ratify. The defendant 3, even with the landlord with the defendant. 2 has
entered into a contract to buy and sell the land to the plaintiff in the same
contract, but the defendants 2 and 3 can not be jointly. So even if the
contract does not bind the defendant, it only affects the defendant. 3 do not
have to sell their own land only to the plaintiff, the contract will buy and
sell. Between the plaintiff and the defendant, the two have the legal effect of
the two defendants must sell their own land to the plaintiff under the
contract.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
4682/2541.
The court has ordered that. He is
an incompetent and set up a petitioner. The objections of the three petitioners
request the Court of First Instance to revoke the order of the petitioner to be
the preschool teacher because of the petitioner's request to be the guardian of
the professor and the request of the preschooler. Is false It is a dishonest
act to obscure the facts. And the obscurity of the father of the founder, the
objection of the 1st is the guardian of Miss Srisakul. The Court of Appeal has
the final verdict of the first objection to the protector. Before the
petitioner will be the guardian of the professors and the case where the Court
of First Instance ordered the petitioner to be the protector of Prof.
Opposition No. 1 has objected to the Court of First Instance to revoke the
order that the Court of Appeal. The Court of First Instance ordered the Court of
First Instance to hear the case and issue a new order according to the case.
The objections of the objections were not asked to withdraw the preschooler.
According to the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1598/8,
because Section 28, paragraph two, prescribes the appointment of preschoolers
the authority of the kindergarten. And the termination of the preschool shall
be in accordance with the provisions of this Act and Section 1598/18, paragraph
two, provides that the provisions on the rights and duties of parents shall
apply in the case. For persons other than parents or non-spouses, Act on the
rights and duties of parents shall apply mutatis mutandis. The appointment of
the kindergarten teacher must be followed by the appointment of the parents as
follows. If it appears that the court is set up as a kindergarten. It is
forbidden to be a kindergarten under Section 1587, while the court establishes
a kindergarten. It appears to the court itself or the interested party or the
prosecutor requested. The court order to revoke the order to set up the
kindergarten, which is a case request. Withdrawal of a prescriptive preschooler
order under Section 1588 After the court has set the order. It is not a case of
filing a protest when it is time to file an objection. It is not a case of
withdrawing a preschooler under section 1598/8, the objection was filed.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
2416/2534.
The sale of real estate by the
minor or the owner of the property shall not be made except The court will
allow under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1574 when the law prohibits
legal acts to sell land, which includes the legal act to sell the land instead
of minors alone, then the minors to act lawfully with representatives. The
effect is that the legislator can do without the permission of the court first,
or act as a minor act. While not underage A court order is binding on a minor when
it reaches the legal age. It is the same as the avoidance of asking for a
permit from the court, which is contrary to the intent of the law to contract
the 8th defendant to act while still a minor, so it has no effect. The
defendant 8, although the plaintiff sued the defendant 8 will be mature.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
1175/2532.
The right to tell the void of the heirs
of the incompetent or those who have committed intentional mischief under the
Civil and Commercial Code, Section 137 will be available only when the
incompetent or the person who has committed intentional death. I do not have to
tell the void before death. So when the plaintiff's father is still alive, even
when doing the legal act of insanity. The plaintiff is only a successor. The
plaintiff is not a heir to the right to clear the void.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
737/2526.
In the plaintiff's indictment. Even
the plaintiff will name the four plaintiffs, followed by the words of the
father, the father of the lawyer, without clearly explaining that the plaintiff
sued the case itself. And people sued by the law. The plaintiff also stated
that the plaintiff has specified the plaintiff's age of 1, 24 years. The
plaintiff is 16 years old. The plaintiff and the plaintiff's fourth plaintiff,
although the plaintiff does not specify the age of the plaintiff. The father of
the place, but it appears in the complaint that the plaintiff is a girl and the
plaintiff is a child as a fourth, it is understandable that the plaintiff has a
legal age and then plaintiff sued the plaintiff. At 3, 4, still a minor, his
legal representative filed a lawsuit instead. The plaintiff sued not covered.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
563/2517.
The victim is a minor as a
plaintiff with the prosecutor. The consent of the father is not in accordance
with the legal requirements of the legal person. In the criminal case, the
minor will join the plaintiff must be done by a representative. According to
the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code Section 3.5 and 6
Judgment of the Supreme Court
595/2506.
The consent of a parent who has
under-adopted his or her minor child. The law does not require that books be
made. The sole signatory of the consent of the child is his or her adopted child.
If it appears that the mother has not objected to for 20 years, and when there
is a dispute about the integrity of this adoption before. The mother is not
involved in the following. The situation is that the mother has consented to
adoption.
